From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27870 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2003 14:27:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27861 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2003 14:27:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2003 14:27:13 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (totem.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.242]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B73A800086; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:27:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E26C140.8050400@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:27:00 -0000 From: Fernando Nasser Organization: Red Hat , Inc. - Toronto User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020827 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/ References: <200301151744.h0FHi6O27664@duracef.shout.net> <20030115175143.GA32268@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00598.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> >>>>From the gdb user's point of view, a bug is a bug. A gdb user can do >>the same thing as the test suite and then file a PR: 'gdb fails to >>print 'const' for const types'. > > > I'm not sure I agree with this. My point of view was that either it's > an expected bug (environment) or it is a "known bug in the tool being > tested". I don't like calling environment bugs KFAILs. Do that, and > we'll just end up with no XFAILs... > > Associating a PR with them is a different issue. Just because we > associate a PR doesn't mean we have to use KFAIL. > That is correct. The last argument of a setup_xfail, if it does not contain '-' (Argh! Don't blame me, it was already there since immemorial times) is the PR number. It can easily be a gdb/NNN bug id. We cannot enforce the syntax, but we can enforce it as a police. So, to address Michael's concerns, we could open a WONTFIX bug report (is there such category? This is the Bugzilla one) saying that it is a GCC or whatever bug and outside of our control and add the id to the setup_xfail. Why doing this? A script can go through the KFAILs (for each platform) and, by reading the Gnats database, automatically create a KNOWN BUGS man page section, or a section of a Release Notes document. Using the same principle, it can go through the XFAILs and generate a section of known limitations _on a specific environment_ (the one where the test results were obtained). Regards, Fernando P.S.: Does someone know how to programatically access the Gnats database? -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9